Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pulmonary rehabilitation is an established intervention for chronic respiratory diseases, but heterogeneous responses, limited mechanistic resolution, and incomplete real-world monitoring restrict precision delivery. Bioengineering platforms may address these gaps by linking clinically actionable respiratory traits to biomaterials, lung-mimetic models, and wearable biointerfaces. This critical narrative Review examines how bioengineering platforms may address three complementary translational needs in precision respiratory rehabilitation: modulation of recovery-relevant pulmonary microenvironments, mechanistic and safety testing in human-relevant lung models, and continuous measurement of rehabilitation exposure and response. We organize these functions within a Trait–Material–Interface–Endpoint framework that links engineering-actionable traits to appropriate platforms, validation requirements, and patient-centred outcomes. The evidence base is uneven. Clinical benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation are well established, whereas direct evidence that biomaterials enhance rehabilitation outcomes remains limited, and many organ-on-chip and wearable applications are still at preclinical or validation stages. These technologies should therefore complement rather than replace guideline-based rehabilitation. Future studies should use staged safety testing, trait-based enrolment, validated digital measures, patient-centred functional outcomes, and implementation endpoints to determine whether bioengineering can make respiratory rehabilitation more measurable, personalized, and clinically translatable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: